The Mistakes of Christianity

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

A righteous jealousy is to be jealous of someone trying to take something of yours.

Didn't Jesus say that if man robs you of your coat, to give him your shirt too, or something like that?

An unrighteous jealousy is to be jealous of something someone else has. There's a difference. God deserves all worship, so yes, I don't blame him in the least for being jealous.

I disagree. Biblically speaking, being jealous of what someone else has would be "coveting", and is covered in a completely different commandment. Also, lust, as in lusting after women, which Jesus spoke against, is not jealousy, it's adultery.

reply to post by allenidaho


There are NO mistakes in Christianity. It is perfect as Christ was perfect. The only mistakes are those of theology by the hands of men who don't read their Bibles properly.

reply to post by windword


The word used in the first verse to call God jealous is a Hebrew word that is used exclusively for God's jealousy, a specific kind. In other words, righteous jealousy belongs to God, who deserves all worship and praise

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


While God's jealousy may be special, God acknowledges "righteous" jealousy in men, and wants that jealousy given to him in a ritual offering.

15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

Numbers Chapter 5

The iniquity is the woman's iniquity. Jealousy itself is not iniquity. Like the iniquity of worshiping other god's, the man's righteous jealousy is like God's righteous jealousy.

31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

reply to post by windword


No, that verse clearly says what not to put in the offering or it will taint it with jealousy. It would "bring iniquity to rememberance". God isn't asking for jealousy, He is rejecting it.

Edit: Also, why are we arguing Mosaic law? Christians are no longer held under the Jewish covenant and its laws don't apply to us.

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by allenidaho

 

There are NO mistakes in Christianity. It is perfect as Christ was perfect. The only mistakes are those of theology by the hands of men who don't read their Bibles properly.

how is the proper way to read the bible?

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

Edit: Also, why are we arguing Mosaic law? Christians are no longer held under the Jewish covenant and its laws don't apply to us.

Covenant....this is key, and most "christians" are unaware of this.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
reply to post by windword

 

No, that verse clearly says what not to put in the offering or it will taint it with jealousy. It would "bring iniquity to rememberance". God isn't asking for jealousy, He is rejecting it.

No. "for it is an offering of jealousy"

Edit: Also, why are we arguing Mosaic law? Christians are no longer held under the Jewish covenant and its laws don't apply to us.

edit on 20-5-2013 by FollowTheWhiteRabbit because: (no reason given)

You're the one who brought up the first commandment!

You said:

1. When we use the word jealous, we use it to mean "jealous of another person", or envious, because of who that person is or what they have. Notice that in Exodus 20:4-5, we see this again. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." In these verses, God was talking about people making false idols and bowing down and worshipping them, instead of giving their worship to God, to whom it belongs. It's a different use of that word, jealous, when God says that He is jealous. What He is jealous of rightfully belongs to Him and Him alone.

All I'm trying to do is point out that men can also have righteous jealousy, emulating GOD's righteous jealousy. The metaphor being: God's jealousy is like that of man's jealousy that is arroused by the prospect of a cheating wife, according to the same "law" that gives us the first commandment. The 10 Commandments do still apply to Christians, don't they? Christians just don't impose the death penalty, anymore, for breaking them

EDIT: Jesus didn't take the 10 Commandments away, he made them harder!

reply to post by windword


The main difference between the ten commands and the law of moses is, the the ten were written by the hand of god.

reply to post by Theophorus


Still..........

The metaphor that Numbers 5 represent is the reflection of God's jealousy, that he pronounces in his first commandment, in the man, that is provoked by someone else going astray.

The wife represent the "church", going astray.

reply to post by allenidaho


I think you mixed christianity, which rely on Jesus and his apostles teachings, and babylonian religion, which relies on the old testament and which Jesus (Christ, thus the word "christianisty") rendered almost obsolete.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
Also, why are we arguing Mosaic law? Christians are no longer held under the Jewish covenant and its laws don't apply to us.

My point exactly. Why do people keep confusing christianity with judaism?

Originally posted by Theophorus

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by allenidaho

 

There are NO mistakes in Christianity. It is perfect as Christ was perfect. The only mistakes are those of theology by the hands of men who don't read their Bibles properly.

how is the proper way to read the bible?

Good question. I'm fairly intelligent, well read, many college credits under my belt, but apparently, I'm too dumb to understand the bible? Why would a god create a book that is so open to misinterpretation?

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by micmerci
Point 6- The books that were omitted from the canon were done so because of Textual Criticism. This statement stands as the rebuttal of your point or do you believe that you possess more knowledge than the scores of textual criticism scholars that have dedicated their lives to authenticating writings from antiquity?

Wait a minute, wait a minute! I thought the bible was written with the holy spirit guiding the pens of the authors? And, this god-approved book was edited by man, with parts of it removed?

There has never been a bible with books removed. They were writings that were put together

Actually this is the most false statement I've EVER come across and you need to get your facts straight. The bible has been edited and re-written so many time for the purpose of manipulation and mind control. It has been edited to the point where they have people worshiping the WRONG "God" and have Evil prevalent over Good. Anybody who has read the bible and believes has been seriously misguided and deceived on a mass scale.

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by allenidaho

 

There are NO mistakes in Christianity. It is perfect as Christ was perfect. The only mistakes are those of theology by the hands of men who don't read their Bibles properly.

Oh this is so sad to read...
The bible has been manipulated, edited and re-written so many times they have it so people are worshiping the wrong god. There is no ONE GOD for us to bow down to, nor should we put Jesus above any King or Pharaoh that came before him. He was ONE messenger throughout one period of time. They have EVIL prevalent in the bible over GOOD and the bible is but a mere distraction from the real truth. We give up all our spiritual, ether power to some false god perched on a throne in the clouds... all for what?

Everything we need, could possibly ever need, is right within us. We are all the power needed to guide us through life.

Christianity was set out the the Evils That Be to keep masses distracted and dissociated from each other.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


And what's the difference between the two? Why give different groups different rules? They would inevitably find each other, discover the differences in their doctrines, and question the righteousness of each other, to the point that they might eventually destroy each other in order to avert the perceived threat to the sanctity of their ways.

What you are suggesting is utterly stupid for a god who is so benevolent and all-knowing.

Rather than identifiying the mistakes in a religion why not focus on improving yourself such that you don't target a whole group of people who consider themselves christians.

Really, these types of threads, as you should know, just get two responses.

The ones from the people you insult.
The ones that give you kudo's since you are enlightened genius (like them)

So the intent here is one of three things--correct me if wrong
1. Burst the bubble for people who get something out of christianity to make yourself appear really smart.
2. You think you are going to convince someone to change their world view based on you, lol
3. You like to modify all the countless other posts from people who figured out the "truth" behind Christianity.

You see where I'm going with this.

reply to post by Snsoc



I could offer so many counterarguments to your post, but what's the point? You'll just keep on defending an invisible being that you've never seen, and only heard of because somebody read a book and told you about it. Or, maybe you read it. Either way, the religious texts are contradictory, with some, if not most, of the claims impossible.

So, I will say this. I met my father once, for five minutes when I was four years old. Fifty-four years later, I still believe he existed.

Okay, for the most part, you are correct, however, I do doubt (not saying you are wrong) a couple of these. If you'd be so kind to cite your sources, I'll agree.

1. The Ten Commandments. I'm sure everybody knows them, right? Wrong. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Thou Shalt Not Steal. Yeah? Only problem is that those are NOT the ten commandments. Don't believe me? Read your bible.

Every bible I've read actually has the commonly believed version of this. Not what you have written. Especially considering the Festival of Unleavened Bread wasn't created until after the exodus, I doubt that would have been added. All of these rules are true, but not the "10 Commandments". These are the, for lack of better words, extended rules of Judaism which Christ pretty much had wiped clean (which is why Christians can eat pork and shellfish, and why homophobes are wrong to cite Christ as a reason against homosexuality)

2. Jesus is not named Jesus.

Correct. Yeshua is his name. But language is a funny thing. If you were to take the direct route from Hebrew to English, we'd be calling him Joshua. Christianity did not take the direct route though. It went through Greek to Latin, to the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian), then to English. I don't recall the Greek name that was translated from Hebrew, but the Latin name translated was Iesus, and Romance languages often turn the 'i' to a 'j' but pronounce it either with an 'h' sound (hey zues) or a sh sound "sher" like "Je m'apelle Noxvita83" (My name is Noxvita83). And the to English, which keeps the spelling but has a different 'J' sound to make "Jesus".

3-5 seems pretty accurate. But has no bearing on the actual faith, just seems to be the typical atheistic nitpicking of religious practitioners to demean, demoralize, or diminish their faith to advance their own "superiority" of being above such superstitious beliefs by claiming to know more than they do about their believes.

6. No one will ever be able to read the full version of the Bible.

Correct again, and this really (in my opinion and my reason for rejecting Christianity). And that is that Constantine knew that the imminent civil war between the Pagan (Roman Mythology worshipers) and Christians were about to happen and that he predicted that the Christians would win. So he decided for the good of his empire to embrace the winning side for nothing more than power. The council of Nicea (spelling maybe wrong here) was set up to mold the religion in such a way that would serve the Empire's elites best. And more has been added and taken away depending on the splinter groups in Post-Martin Luther's leader's will after that point not to mention the obvious Feudalistic organization of the Catholic Church was put there for just that reason as well, because the Holy See wanted Political power as well. So technically, you are correct that Christianity is not complete due to these reasons, however, who are you or I to tell people how to believe based on our opinions, whether supported or unsupported by fact. Your atheism automatically disqualifies you from judgement on issues based on faith for the fact atheism in of itself is a rejection of faith. So without faith, you can not possibly decide what to do with faith. It would similar to a person trying to vote for a King in a monarchy or putting blinkers on your buttocks and using them to signify your turning left or right like a car does even though you are walking. You, by making the choice to be an atheist, have put yourself outside the realm of faith, thus have no bearing on it. Doing so makes you no better than theists attempting to force the teaching of intelligent design or creationism inside science class. Just because many theists are guilty of it does not mean you should too. The old adage comes to mind, "If they jumped off a cliff, should you too?"

And I've written this without forcing my beliefs, be them atheistic or theistic upon anyone. Can you, OP, say the same?

reply to post by noxvita83


Exodus 34. If you read the whole Bible, and not just the recommended portions, you'd see a lot of discrepancies and contradictions.

reply to post by noxvita83

6. No one will ever be able to read the full version of the Bible.

Correct again, and this really (in my opinion and my reason for rejecting Christianity). And that is that Constantine knew that the imminent civil war between the Pagan (Roman Mythology worshipers) and Christians were about to happen and that he predicted that the Christians would win. So he decided for the good of his empire to embrace the winning side for nothing more than power. The council of Nicea (spelling maybe wrong here) was set up to mold the religion in such a way that would serve the Empire's elites best.

No, that is not the case.

If you only learn one thing today, please let it be the knowledge that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the selection of canon for the New Testament. We have a canon from the Second Century that is almost exactly what exists today, the final canon came from the church, not the government, and consists of books that meet very specific criteria:

1. Apostolic connection - a book had to be written by an Apostle, or with the assistance of one
2. In general use - a book had to have widespread circulation and acceptance
3. Harmonious - a book had to be in harmony with other scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and other texts that were included in the New Testament

While we now believe that the "Apostolic connection" requirement may have been violated, in that authorship of the Gospels and several letters is in question, the Church Fathers at the time had no such belief. We can see books going in and out of canon (such as the Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of John) as questions were raised, and either addressed or agreed to.

The oft quoted claim that "dozens of gospels were rejected at Nicaea" is a piece of fiction, nothing more. Most such gospels were Gnostic in nature, and were rejected well over a hundred years before that council, we know what was discussed at the council (the divine nature of Christ, and the Arian heresy) and absolutely none of it had to do with selecting the books of the Bible. Many of the "elites" of the time (including some emperors,) were followers of Arias, so it is erroneous to think that the government rejected Arianism to promote an agenda. Constantine, in fact, had little to do with the council, acknowledging that he knew nothing of the dispute, just telling the Bishops to "resolve the issue, one way or the other."

For more information on the Council of Nicaea, I recommend: Fourth Century Christianity Home >> Council of Nicaea (AD 325), which includes many surviving documents from the time.